Is Google planning to offer IP video to Kansas City?

Is IP video on its way to Kansas City via Google? There are now some new clues …

Does Google want to provide some kind of IP video service for the people of Kansas City, Kansas and Kansas City, Missouri? We've heard the rumors. Here's another hint that they may be true after all: the Federal Communications Commission has received and reviewed an application from Google Fiber for a fixed satellite, receive-only earth station to be located in Council Bluffs, Iowa—about 200 miles northwest of the two Kansas cities. And Google Fiber is a subsidiary of Google; it's the company that is building out a 1Gbps fiber-to-the-home testbed for the location in question.

Google announced the whereabouts of its testbed experiment ten months ago. The service will provide "open access" to any Kansas City area ISP wanting to use Google's pipes, charging fees similar to current rates for slower connections in the region. Last Monday, Google's Kevin Lo noted on his Google Fiber blog that "starting today, we're ready to lay fiber."

But perhaps Google plans to roll out more than that. Google Fiber's application to the FCC reads as follows:

Google Fiber, Inc. seeks to register a C−band receive−only earth station and a Ku−band receive−only earth station in Council Bluffs, Iowa. The earth stations will be located adjacent to each other and will be used to provide analog and digital audio, data, and video services.

No primary users

The C-band is accessed by satellites in the 4GHz area for uplinks and 5-6GHz zone for downlinks. It is deployed by 24/7 satellite television communications networks. The Ku band operates in a higher range, from 12 to 14GHz, but it is also used for satellite TV.

On February 2, the FCC partially turned down the request, but for technical or administrative reasons that suggest that another filing could prevail, or that Google Fiber might be able to pursue the project anyway.

First, the agency's Satellite Division dismissed the need to apply for a license for the Ku band. "The Commission has previously determined that it is not necessary to license or register receive-only earth stations operating in the 11.7-12.2 GHz frequency band because there are no other primary users in this spectrum," the FCC told Google Fiber.

Second, the Commission denied Google the right to receive ALSAT ("All US-Licensed Satellites") via various requested frequencies in the C and Ku bands. These apparently do not belong to the "conventional" bands allowed this privilege by the FCC. Those earth stations that do provide fixed-satellite service in the appropriate bands can access any U.S. satellite "without additional Commission action," the letter said.

"Dismissal of these requests is without prejudice to consideration of the request to register the receive-only earth station in the conventional C-band," the agency's response concluded.

As we build . . .

In addition, the FCC had an auditor vet the application for interference problems. None were found. The Council Bluffs site "will operate satisfactorily with the common carrier microwave environment," the audit determined. "Further, there will be no restrictions of its operation due to interference considerations."

So some of Google Fiber's request appears to have received a green light—one that might bloom into a video service, depending on what is planned.

We contacted Google about the application and asked for details. "We're still exploring what product offerings will be available when we launch Google Fiber in Kansas City," a Google spokesperson told Ars.

Matthew Lasar
Matt writes for Ars Technica about media/technology history, intellectual property, the FCC, or the Internet in general. He teaches United States history and politics at the University of California at Santa Cruz. Emailmatthew.lasar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@matthewlasar

I don't understand why a satellite downlink would be needed? Can't everything be run through fiber?

The satellite downlink allows them to grab all of the TV channels.

Can't you grab it by land-line? Satellite seem so 1980's

Satellite is by far the most cost-effective delivery method. The broadcaster uplinks it once, and every TV provider can just grab the signal. Why pay for fiber to every single TV provider when satellite can take care of them all at once? Pretty much all TV networks are distributed via satellite.

I don't understand why a satellite downlink would be needed? Can't everything be run through fiber?

The satellite downlink allows them to grab all of the TV channels.

Can't you grab it by land-line? Satellite seem so 1980's

Satellite is by far the most cost-effective delivery method. The broadcaster uplinks it once, and every TV provider can just grab the signal. Why pay for fiber to every single TV provider when satellite can take care of them all at once? Pretty much all TV networks are distributed via satellite.

Thanks for the clarification - I just assumed everyone shared by fiber (since I assume all the stations have a high quality fiber connection).

I don't understand why a satellite downlink would be needed? Can't everything be run through fiber?

The satellite downlink allows them to grab all of the TV channels.

Can't you grab it by land-line? Satellite seem so 1980's

Satellite is by far the most cost-effective delivery method. The broadcaster uplinks it once, and every TV provider can just grab the signal. Why pay for fiber to every single TV provider when satellite can take care of them all at once? Pretty much all TV networks are distributed via satellite.

Thanks for the clarification - I just assumed everyone shared by fiber (since I assume all the stations have a high quality fiber connection).

Fiber is best for point-to-point connnections. Most live events are sent from the venue to the broadcaster via fiber, with satellite as a backup. But after that, it's satellite all the way.

Council Bluffs also has a Google datacenter that employs more than a handful of people. There's a good chance that it's unrelated and just an additional data stream to their most centrally located server farm.

Why would you need an FCC license for receive only? I was under the impression that the reason for licensing was to keep one party from broadcasting over another; to make sure everyone plays well together.

Why would you need an FCC license for receive only? I was under the impression that the reason for licensing was to keep one party from broadcasting over another; to make sure everyone plays well together.

I had the same question on reading the article, and I'm not quite sure myself. But according to the FCC, they don't need a license for Ku.

Maybe a dumb question but, cant they just rent/buy an already built and operating station? Then, just lease/buy or build a fat pipe to a regular building at this location (assuming this location is important for another reason). Maybe have a backup pipe from another location as well? It should be cheaper to run/maintain in the long run, right?

Another common practice is to bundle many fiber optic strands within long-distance power transmission cable. This exploits power transmission rights of way effectively, ensures a power company can own and control the fiber required to monitor its own devices and lines, is effectively immune to tampering, and simplifies the deployment of smart grid technology.

So what. My Telco has been doing 1Gbps fiber-to-the-home for the last two years... The transfer capacity is great, but the whole channel-box-TV model is going away. Companies would be better off spending their money on fiber, bandwidth and streaming content contracts in the future. Why we waste our efforts supporting a dying service when we could be building a next-generation data network befuddles and infuriates me.

C band downlinks are registered for interference protection reasons. Not all are registered, but one dish per site is typical. Reason being that there are other users of the C-band spectrum, so you want them aware that there is a receive site there.

Ku band (downlink) doesn't have any terrestrial emitters so there is no reason for coordination.

This is definitely for television programming, as data or other uses would be 2-way capable, Ku, or Ka band. C band is overly expensive for mere data transport.

Since this is an ideal "greenfield" build, they will likely install a torus antenna that can cover the whole sky. The filing says the C and Ku antennas are separate, and I thought that torus antennas could cover both bands but I may be mistaken.

If google rolls out past kansas city, that site would be able to serve other cites if they roll out farther than kansas city.

Triple play could be in the cards, but that will be becomes obvious when google starts talking to the state telecommunications regulatory agency about local phone service.

I'll be interested in technical details about the fiber system they put in place.

I suspect the residents of kansas city will be the envy of the nation shortly.

I appreciate the coverage Ars has given the Google rollout (such as it's been) in KC but this is a little annoying: "of the two Kansas cities." It should be "two Kansas Cities." There's not two Kansas cities being talked about in the article, there's two Kansas City... er cities.

Not a big deal since everyone knows the real Kansas City is in Missouri, right?

I really, really hope that Google finds this to be profitable. I know the real reason is a hedge against ISPs trying to throttle and cap bandwidth, but we need a good, large ISP that can challenge the Verizons & Comcasts of the world to do better.

Old_Wolf wrote:

Not a big deal since everyone knows the real Kansas City is in Missouri, right?

Seriously though, as long as this is executed well (or at all, given the progress we've seen so far), this should be a good thing for the KC Metro area.

Well, it seems that Google has decided to make the already insane task of data-filling their GIS systems and route paths manually. Their blog talks about people actually walking around in teams to collect the needed information. There are GIS companies out there that have already data-mined all the right-of-ways in every city, so I wonder what this was needed for. Maybe they're trying to decipher the nominal accuracy of said available data? If not that, then they're re-inventing the wheel on how to build out a telecom network. While the process may net an end gain in efficiencies on forward looking processes for Google Fiber in the future, it will be anything but quickly done in the KC Metro area.

I really, really hope that Google finds this to be profitable. I know the real reason is a hedge against ISPs trying to throttle and cap bandwidth, but we need a good, large ISP that can challenge the Verizons & Comcasts of the world to do better.

Old_Wolf wrote:

Not a big deal since everyone knows the real Kansas City is in Missouri, right?

Seriously though, as long as this is executed well (or at all, given the progress we've seen so far), this should be a good thing for the KC Metro area.

Well, it seems that Google has decided to make the already insane task of data-filling their GIS systems and route paths manually. Their blog talks about people actually walking around in teams to collect the needed information. There are GIS companies out there that have already data-mined all the right-of-ways in every city, so I wonder what this was needed for. Maybe they're trying to decipher the nominal accuracy of said available data? If not that, then they're re-inventing the wheel on how to build out a telecom network. While the process may net an end gain in efficiencies on forward looking processes for Google Fiber in the future, it will be anything but quickly done in the KC Metro area.

Council Bluffs also has a Google datacenter that employs more than a handful of people. There's a good chance that it's unrelated and just an additional data stream to their most centrally located server farm.

No, there's not. The company that submitted the application to the FCC is Google Fiber, Inc., the subsidiary whose sole purpose is building the fiber network in KC, so it's pretty much guaranteed to be related to that.